The Black Knight (1954)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Powerful

Excellent but underrated film

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This may be Alan Ladd's worst film, I have not seen them all, heck, I was named after the guy and he starred in at least two great films and supported others, so you can't call me biased against him. Of course, one could argue that it was just bad casting as his "type" did not match the film, but the film is so terrible on so many levels that it is almost as if it was done for a purpose other than making a film, just thrown together in haste, perhaps to fulfill a contractual obligation but done so in order to perhaps kill a contractual relationship. Obviously money was put into the film, not "Hollywood" money, but where a decent film might have been made with normal across the board talent. Incredibly amateurish, and one wonders the dynamics involved with Tay Garnett, who had done much better in the past. There is no redeeming quality to this bizarrely bad film. It does have some so-bad it can't be serious funny moments, perhaps these moments are "statements" of protest or perhaps deliberate attempts to make this film as badly as possible, perhaps a real inspiration for "The Producers". The film is so badly done on ALL levels which makes it hard to criticize the parts. I've seen low-budget British films that scrimp on props and special effects to the point of absurdity and feature little talented supporting acting, but still deliver fine lead acting performances and scripts that overcome the obvious deficiencies. In this case, it would have taken a masterful over the top enthusiastic lead to overcome the so many flaws in the film (even with the at least three supporting actors in the film with talent), but Alan Ladd's performance wasn't even "dialed in". He apparently just did the"minimum" he was directed to do (or maybe he was ill), or perhaps just horrible casting. Peter Cushing at least tried to be the nefarious bad guy despite the total ridiculousness of his role. I try to find good in films, but it just isn't here. This is not a film that deserves preservation.

Awful but entertainingly so. To begin with, Alan Ladd was too old (or at least looked too old) to pull off the role of a dashing young knight. He was out of shape, pudgy, and his doughy face looks even worse when framed by his jousting helmet, which he wears in nearly every scene. He was not a physically graceful or athletic man, yet we have to see him running and leaping around endlessly, awkwardly. And as for that helmet, Ladd's and all the knights' helmets in the movie are apparently the result of a deranged costume designer out of control, with ridiculous appendages and raging birds, etc. No self-respecting knight would have appeared in one of those things, except maybe Sir Liberace. Then there's the issue of Stonehenge. In one scene, a group of knights and soldiers are shown completely demolishing the famous monument. Every stone is toppled. The main reason I kept watching this stinker to the end was out of curiosity about how they were going to explain how Stonehenge came down to us with most of its components still standing. Would some other, more responsible knights go back and restore it, or what? Amazingly, the film never shows or mentions it again!For a good knight movie from this period, give "The Black Knight" a pass and see "Ivanhoe", "Prince Valiant", or "The Court Jester" instead.

Yikes! This movie begins with a Knight riding by on a horse, singing a little ditty about Knightly daring douze. Though this film was made around the same time as "Shane", Alan Ladd looks quite different; he appears to be ill in many scenes. Since Mr. Ladd's stuntman is very energetic, he might have been a better choice to play the lead role of "John" in this film. Peter Cushing has a very deep tan, which made me wonder if, perhaps, the actors thought they were being filmed in "Black and White"? Oh well, I guess Mr. Cushing would have recognized that color cameras are different. Still, the movie has a very inexpensive look. I was so distracted by the costumes, I lost track of the plot. There is some fire, and they try to burn a man in a cage, but Mr. Ladd interferes with the burning. He also saves the woman This movie has no trouble earning a most "awful" rating. * The Black Knight (8/26/54) Tay Garnett ~ Alan Ladd, Patricia Medina, Peter Cushing

I liked it only because I fancy swords and medieval armor. However, you're not going to learn anything factual nor fascinating about medieval combat here unlike in Robert Taylor's Ivanhoe or Knights of the Round Table.The character portrayed by Alan Ladd wears an abbreviated armor eschewing the greaves and other gear to protect the legs and arms. Save for the breastplate and chain mail (short sleeved at that!), there is little to suggest that he wears authentic knightly armor. Even his helmet covers only the top of his face (no doubt to display his handsome features.) Robocop is the same way. The reason for the light armor becomes apparent when Ladd performs acrobatics in combat unlikely to have been part of a knight's dueling or battle paces. Robert Wagner in Prince Valiant does similar things.The heroic Black Knight is actually a commoner and thus barred from bearing knightly arms and so has to keep his identity secret.The villains are a Saracen knight (Peter Cushing) allied with Cornishmen. Why the people of Cornwall who are as British as the English? Beats me.Cushing gives a luscious performance as a baddie. His quip after humiliating the blacksmith Alan Ladd before his lady love (Patricia Medina) is memorable. After failing to egg the meek Alan Ladd into fighting him, he turns to Patricia saying: "Please pardon this shameful exhibition."The photography and location shots are excellent.